BELLE — A resignation not entered into official city minutes raises questions regarding the integrity of official city records.

The issue stems from concerns first raised about the wording of the Feb. 25 meeting minutes, which ultimately led to the resignation of Charro Reasor, city treasurer-office administrator, following the March 10 meeting.

During that discussion, Alderman Rebecca Withouse said Reasor acknowledged that she had written the minutes in question — a responsibility typically associated with the city clerk.

State law designates the clerk as the official custodian of records, responsible for maintaining the minutes, though it does not explicitly require the clerk to personally draft them.

Missouri statutes require public governmental bodies to keep minutes of meetings and designate the city clerk as the official responsible for maintaining those records and preserving the journal of proceedings.

Because of that framework, the clerk’s signature on official minutes typically affirms that the document is an accurate and properly maintained record of the meeting.

Withouse initially raised concerns about the minutes due to the language used.

The official minutes from the Feb. 25 meeting under Citizens Participation said, “Tracey Creswell spoke on the nonsense she made up and reported to the newspaper without fact checking her information. She said she can admit when she is wrong and she is wrong. Additionally, she made an apology to Charro stating she knew she was rude to her.”

City Attorney James Klahr also expressed concern during the discussion about the wording, according to Withouse, citing the need for neutrality in official documents.

A review of Creswell’s actual remarks during the Feb. 25 meeting provides additional context and highlights differences from the wording included in the official minutes:

“I just want to take a minute and say I am very sorry that I messed up on my paperwork. And when I make a mistake, I own up to it,” Creswell said. “Charro, I owe you an apology, and I’m not too proud to admit when I’m wrong and I just want to let everybody know that I am very sorry it was my mistake. I own up to it. I’m going to pay the fine this week, and I wanted to apologize. I never accused anybody. I made a general comment, and it was taken the way that I wanted it to be taken, but I did not accuse anybody. I know I was rude to you, and I apologize.”

While the board discussed revising the language, no changes were ultimately approved, and official minutes from the March 10 meeting do not reflect Reasor’s resignation or the discussion preceding or following that event.

Following her resignation, Mayor James (Pudd) Mitchell spoke with Reasor and convinced her to return to work.

According to Creswell, Mitchell also spoke with her after the March 10 meeting and told her that he would talk to the board and revisit the portion of the minutes in question at the April board of aldermen meeting.

The official agenda for the regularly scheduled board of aldermen meeting set for April 14 did not include revisiting the minutes.

Instead, a proposal to censure an alderperson was placed on the agenda, shifting the focus of the April 14 meeting away from the unresolved concerns about the integrity of the city’s official records.

The board ultimately voted to censure Alderman Rebecca Withouse in a 3-0-1 vote, with Withouse abstaining, citing her actions during the March 10 meeting when she raised concerns about the Feb. 25 minutes in closed session without prior notice to the mayor or other board members.

According to the resolution read by Mayor James (Pudd) Mitchell, Withouse’s actions were described as “blindsiding” other officials and violating the city’s code of conduct, which encourages advance communication and cooperation among elected officials.

Withouse stated on the record that she had not been given prior notice of the censure or an opportunity to review or respond before it was brought forward.

“I would like it noted on the record that I have not been provided any prior notice of charges or any opportunity to review or to respond to any proposed action beyond that which was listed on the agenda,” Withouse said.

When asked who had informed Withouse in advance, Mitchell responded, “Nobody.”

The agenda item itself — listed only as “Proposed Censure of Alderperson” — did not specify who would be censured, raising further questions about whether the same standard of notice cited in the resolution was consistently applied.

The situation creates a direct parallel to the concerns surrounding the Feb. 25 meeting minutes, where questions have been raised not only about the wording and neutrality of the record, but also about oversight, process and whether official actions were properly reviewed before being finalized.

While the censure formally addressed Withouse’s conduct, it did not resolve the outstanding concerns regarding the authorship, wording or certification of the Feb. 25 meeting minutes — issues that remain absent from official action despite earlier discussion.

Belle City Ordinance 113.490 governs employee conduct. The ordinance states that it is the duty of each employee to maintain high standards of conduct, cooperation, efficiency and economy in their work for the city. It further provides that when an employee’s work habits, attitude or personal conduct fall below acceptable standards, those deficiencies should be addressed by supervisors in a constructive manner, with the goal of correction and improvement before formal discipline is considered.

Under Ordinance 113.520, which addresses employee discipline, Section p includes inappropriate conduct or treatment of members of the public as grounds for disciplinary action.

City clerks and other officials are generally expected to maintain neutrality and accuracy when recording minutes. Describing a citizen’s statements as “nonsense she made up” could reasonably be interpreted as inappropriate treatment of a member of the public, as it goes beyond documenting what was said and introduces a judgment about the citizen.

The approved minutes from the March 10 meeting also do not include Reasor’s resignation or any discussion that occurred after the board returned from closed session, despite those events taking place. Minutes are generally intended to reflect the actions and key proceedings of a meeting.

Despite those provisions, it is unknown if Reasor will face any disciplinary action related to the language used in the Feb. 25 minutes.

Mitchell has not responded to The Advocate concerning Creswell’s comment about the board revisiting the Feb. 25 meeting minutes.

Asked why Reasor’s resignation was not reflected in the March 10 minutes, Mitchell said, “After discussing with our attorney, because no action was taken, it did not need to be on the minutes.”